Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25527141›Full record

SynthesisBMC neurology2014

The efficacy and safety of cilostazol for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in acute and chronic phases in Asian population--an updated meta-analysis.

LiGen Shi, JiaLi Pu, Liang Xu, Jay Malaguit, Jianmin Zhang, Sheng Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

LiGen ShiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang, China. slg0904@163.com.
JiaLi PuDepartment of Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. carrie1105@gmail.com.
Liang XuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang, China. maxalive@163.com.
Jay MalaguitDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA. jmalaguit@llu.edu.
Jianmin ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang, China. zjm135vip@126.com.
Sheng ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang, China. saintchan@sina.com.
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNLoma Linda University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsWhile previous meta-analysis have investigated the efficacy of cilostazol in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke, they were criticized for their methodology, which confused the acute and chronic phases of stroke. We present a new systematic review, which differs from previous meta-analysis by distinguishing between the different phases of stroke, and includes two new randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsAll RCTs investigating the effect of cilostazol on secondary prevention of ischemic stroke were obtained. Outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager, including recurrence of cerebral infarction (ROCI), hemorrhage stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage (HSSH), all-cause death (ACD), and modified Rankin Scale score (mRS). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of the evidence.

results5491 patients from six studies were included in the current study. In secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in chronic phase, cilostazol was associated with a 47% reduction in ROCI (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34 to 0.81, p = 0.003), while no significant difference in HSSH and ACD compared with placebo; and 71% reduction in HSSH (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.56, p = 0.0002) compared with aspirin, but not in ROCI and ACD. In the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in acute phase, cilostazol did not show any effect in the ROCI, HSSH, ACD and mRS compared to placebo or aspirin. The quality of the evidence from chronic phase was high or moderate, and those from acute phase were moderate or low when analyzed by GRADE approach.

conclusionCilostazol provided a protective effect in the secondary prevention of the chronic phase of ischemic stroke.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleSecondary PreventionAcute DiseaseAspirinCerebral HemorrhageCerebral InfarctionChronic DiseaseCilostazolHumansPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsStrokeSubarachnoid HemorrhageTetrazolesTreatment OutcomeAspirinCilostazolPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTetrazoles

Identifiers

PMID25527141
PMCPMC4301843
OpenAlexW2124430082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.